1. This study was conducted by Maiken Nedergaard, M.D., D.M.Sc. and the University of Rochester Medical Center for Translational Neuromedicine.
2. It is unclear from the information in the article whether or not a third-party sponsor was responsible for the funding of the research.
3. Possible sponsors of the research could include pharmaceutical companies interested in gaining an edge over competitors with less knowledge.
4. The basis of the study is extremely ambiguous as well as the facts behind the updated view of brain signals. The article lacks information regarding sample size, sample selection, control groups and length of study.
5. Reasons behind the University of Rochester's altered view on brain signaling are presented in a brief video in which pictures represent brain activity. Nowhere in the video nor in the article are results from the study or former studies compared or displayed as to reinforce the findings. The information provided in the article is focused upon the comparison of the old and new models without specifically stating the basis upon doing so.
6. The video included in the formal article produced by the University of Rochester does not include any graphs. However, a brief explanation behind the studies findings is represented in an animated video. Specific numbers are left out of the study entirely.
University of Rochester Medical Center. "
Accepted model for brain signaling flawed."ScienceDaily, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.
Additional Sources:
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=3725
University of Rochester Medical Center. "Accepted model for brain signaling flawed."ScienceDaily, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment